FAIR’s new Action Alert points out that the New York Times has abused its own policies on anonymity to allow government officials to smear critics. We’re encouraging people to write to the Times public editor. Please post your letters to the Times in the comments section below.
I agree with their perspective — especially Vis a vis that word. As it is a COMPLETELY arbitrary appellation: our government can name those who are terrorists meaning legally then that as a US citizen you cannot even engage in dialogue with them, not to mention all of the emotional baggage and distain that is triggered with the use of that term….it is important that you, purveyors of truth….(Oh, people, tell us, should that be our job? COME ON!, of course!) Oh, but that might mean that you have to drop your screen of objectivity….hmmmmmmmm….objectivity is giving equal time to liars and hypocrites? I do not think so: but would that mean then that you are taking “sides”, delving into the roots, into clarity, into re-vitalizing our culture, making freedom of speech worth its weight: that open discourse will get us the best policy…not the loudest ranters….Come on: Please: give us back our language. Bring meaning to our words. Do not let propaganda be the norm! You COULD make a difference If you remembered your mission. I am serious. This is important!
Rebecca Tippens
rebecca_tippens@yahoo.com
I am outraged that the NYT published the claim by an Israeli official (under condition of anonymity) that Khadar Adnan is a “terrorist.” Had there been any evidence of terrorism, there would have been no need for “administrative detention”; he could have been formally charged. The NYT should not violate its own standards to facilitate such slander. The Adnan case confirms my long-felt suspicion that the Israeli government feels far more threatened by nonviolent resistance than it does by actual terrorist acts and conflates the two. This latest outrage is just one more instance of the NYT’s uncritical support of Israeli behavior it would not tolerate in an Arab nation.
I am outraged that the NYT published the claim by an Israeli official (under condition of anonymity) that Khadar Adnan is a “terrorist.” Had there been any evidence of terrorism, there would have been no need for “administrative detention”; he could have been formally charged. The NYT should not violate its own standards to facilitate such slander. The Adnan case confirms my long-felt suspicion that the Israeli government feels far more threatened by nonviolent resistance than it does by actual terrorist acts and conflates the two. This latest outrage is just one more instance of the NYT’s uncritical support of Israeli behavior it would not tolerate in an Arab nation.
What FAIR omits are the implications of using the label “terrorist.” It now means that anyone so labelled can be assassinated by drones, and without arrest, conviction, or even the opportunity to surrender.
Evidence of terrorism? Where is the evidence of journalism?
The public should stop accepting anonymous sources of information and insist that every source of information be vetted. There probably are a few acceptable exclusions, but I would think they would be rare. One notable exception would be victims of an attack who are concerned about retribution.
There is no reason, however, to quote anonymous sources concerning the economy, environmental issues, and nearly every social policy. Pentagon and military policy absolutely MUST be openly sourced; we already know what happens when they are not.
Granting anonymity to government sources to smear critics is journalistically indefensible.
I would like a published explanation of why the Times is not following your own policies!!!
Mr. Brisbane,
You have lowered NYT’s standards markedly â┚¬“ I question the truth of much of what you print and here you go again â┚¬“ calling people â┚¬Ã…“terroristsâ┚¬Ã‚ with anonymity â┚¬“ shall we call you The Enquirer or USA Today? Please follow your own policies and write about these recent violations of the Times’ own policies on granting anonymity. Granting anonymity to government sources to smear critics is journalistically indefensible.
Disgusting for a paper that once commanded my respect,
Jonnie Westerop
Loveland, COlorado
My note to the Times’ “ombudsman”:
Arthur,
I’m sure you’ve heard from a ton of people on this anonymous Israeli officials being quoted by the Times on uncharged prisoners being branded terrorists.
Now in the US I believe that it has recently been called “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Constitutional sense to subject a person to extended solitary confinement.
Could we have a little coverage, please, on just how often this actually happens — the solitary confinement, not the identification of cruel and unusual punishment — both in the US and the countries to which it “renders” prisoners, and also in Israel.
With best wishes,
-dlj.
Dear Mr. Brisbane,
According to your paper’s stated policy, you “do not grant anonymity to people who use it as a personal or partisan attack.” However in two different articles, you let two anonymous sources make personal or partisan attacks against individuals and groups are doing very important work. The first was in your February 6th story about the important work of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that is reporting the impact of drone strikes. Your story quotes a senior American counterterrorism who is anonymous claiming that this Bureau is working to “help Al-Qaeda succeed.” Investigating drone strikes should not be considered helping Al-Qaeda succeed especially since drone strikes have mainly killed civilians. Your anonymous source waged a partisan attack against the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which very necessarily puts a human face on the abuse that our military policy is having on civilians. I hope you can address this issue of partisan attacks by your anonymous sources. A second attack was in your February 22nd story about Khader Adnan, whom an anonymous Israeli official called a “Palestinian terrorist.” What exactly according to this source qualifies Adnan as a “terrorist”? The fact that he will stage a hunger strike in support of his oppressed Palestinians? The fact that he won’t lie down and happily accept the imprisonment and occupation of his fellow Palestinians? Your quote of this anonymous source’s attack of Adnan as a “terrorist” is irresponsible and against your own policy.
It would help the New York Times to appear more legitimate if your anonymous sources would stop spouting ideas and partisan attacks as if they were gospel truth and stick closer to your own stated Company policy. Please keep “all the news that’s fit to print” also fit to “believe.”
Sincerely,
Rhone Fraser
Subject: It is so sad how low the New York Times has sunk
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:20:48 -0600
From: Carey Tyler Schug
To: public@nytimes.com
What has happened to the New York times? Why do they now accuse (or let others accuse) anybody who values the United Nations bill of rights and US Constitution and the rights of all people to be equated with a terrorist? Whenever you report anything anonymous, it is making it YOUR statement. These are opinions, not news. And probably LIES.
Are you going to turn my name over to the CIA so I can be harassed and have my rights violated too?
Maybe it is time for the news paper to just close up shop, or to change its name to “The Republican Bugle”
Carey Tyler Schug
(My address)
(city), IL 60016
A senior American counter-terrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions–there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al-Qaeda succeed.”
An Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called the deal over Mr. Adnan “a workable arrangement” since ultimately he will be almost completing his four-month term of detention.
“We faced a dilemma,” the official said. “On the one hand we did not want any harm to come to him, or the wider danger in that. On the other hand it is not healthy to set a precedent that every time a Palestinian terrorist goes on hunger strike, he gets a get-out-of-jail-free pass.”
Sent to Arthur Brisane:
In relation to FAIR’s Alert, NYT Lets Unnamed Officials Smear Critics as ‘Terrorists’ https://fair.org/index.php?page=4492 , an example:
In a WSJ article (â┚¬Ã…“NYT Supports a Communist Takeoverâ┚¬Ã‚Â) this week, the NYT was accused of secretly supporting a â┚¬Ã…“communist takeover of this country by subversive and covert means.â┚¬Ã‚ The source, a â┚¬Ã…“senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity,â┚¬Ã‚ was adamant that â┚¬Ã…“the NYT must be countered, even brought down (by all available means) if necessary, in this ongoing war against terrorism (both domestic and abroad).â┚¬Ã‚Â
Sent to Brisbane:
It is highly disturbing to see the New York Times join in the loose use of the term “terrorist” by including it in quotes from anonymous sources. We all know that “terrorists”, rather than any longer being defined by their actions, are now defined by the politics of the one who applies the label. It has become a meaningless term that is simply used to create fear based on bias.
Please be more discriminating in your reporting.
I called Arthur Brisane and left a message, which I repeat here.
I read the FAIR report about the reckless use of the word “terrorist” in violation of the New York Times own standards. I implore you to not allow this violation to go unchecked. Please print a retraction and reinforce the clear, strong commitment to never print accusation, especially ones so serious as that of “Terrorist” by anonymous sources.
Julie Peterson
Chicago
I am disturbed by the Times’ granting of anonymity to sources who accuse critics of US foreign policy of “terrorism.” The term terrorism has become so overused in the past decade that its usage is now practically meaningless; it tends to function instead as a way for ruling elites to delegitimize criticism of US foreign policy and the policies of its close allies like Israel. Nevertheless, use of the word has very serious implications, since the US government has given itself the power to torture, murder, and indefinitely imprison anyone whom it decides to accuse of terrorism. No public official should be allowed to level this very serious accusation against someone without providing evidence, or at the very least without being named by the news source so that they are subject to public scrutiny and thus pressured to provide evidence.
I am writing to request that you publish a response to FAIR’s latest media alert (https://fair.org/blog/2012/02/22/new-nyt-rule-anonymous-govt-sources-can-call-their-critics-terrorists/). I am aware that you have emailed a response to readers who have inquired, but in light of the fact that two recent articles appear to be clear violations of the NYT anonymity policy, I think a public response is appropriate.
Criticism is not Terrorism, its Democracy in Action
Dear Mr. Brisbane,
Why is the NYT becoming a propaganda paper? Why are government officials are being granted anonymity by the NYT to attack individuals critical of those governments’ policies. The privilege the NYT extends to these powerful figures means they are shielded from any accountability for their words. Where are the journalistic ethics? This is just what you did prior to Iraq and it is just as disgraceful now as it was then.
Twice this month, as well as in the past, the NYT has allowed anonymous government officials to smear critics as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers–a shocking violation of the paper’s explicit rules against allowing anonymity to be a cover for attacks.
Example 1: Feb 22 story: reporter Isabel Kershner quotes an anonymous Israeli official who declares Adnan a terrorist. Yet there is no proof and no formal charge has been made under Israel’s own laws. If Israeli officials know he is a terrorist, they don’t need to detain him without charge. They could bring a case against him under anti-terror laws. So the Times is granting anonymity to a government official to declare Adnan a criminal, despite the lack of any publicly available evidence that this is the case.
Example 2: Feb 6 story: the NTY granted anonymity to a US official who who equated a nonprofit news outlet’s researchers with Al-Qaeda sympathizers.
Both examples clearly violate the paper’s stated standards on the granting of anonymity. That privilege is to be used rarely, should be “the subject of energetic negotiation” and should “tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source.” The policy also bars granting the cover of anonymity “to people who are engaged in speculation,” and states directly: “We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack.”
In these cases, government officials are being granted anonymity to attack individuals critical of those governments’ policies. The privilege the Times extends to these powerful figures means they are shielded from any accountability for their words.
As editor, you must write about these flagrant and irresponsible violations of the NYT’s own policies on granting anonymity. Granting anonymity to government sources to smear critics is journalistically and morally indefensible.
Thanks, FAIR, for pointing out the obvious. I had seen these stories and, as usual when seeing the word “anonymous”, bailed immediately. Sometimes though, you need to push back.
Keep up the good work!
Sent to the Public Editor:
Mr. Brisbane,
I have complained to this office in the past regarding the NYTimes generous granting of anonymity to sources in news stories.
In some instances, there is a real danger to the source, and the reader must rely on the credibility of the reporter to guage reliability. In most other cases, either the source should go on record, or the reporter should forego using the input. NYTimes’s overuse of anonymous sources causes readers to develop a tolerance for the gossipy quality that flavor such stories, and ultimately expect less of the paper. That is a high price to pay for easy access to “soft” news.
This is especially true in coverage of “terrorism”. The terrible results of the slack standards [not limited to the NYTimes] applied to government sources since 9/11/2001 on national security matters are in evidence all around the world. The stakes are too high, given the current drumbeat toward attacking Iran, the shifting political sands of Afghanistan/Pakistan, and the upheavals in Africa and Central America, not to require a name be given in most instances.
Most people aggregate their worldview, assembling news from multiple platforms. Each source is “handicapped” depending on the consumer’s perception of its relialbility and inherent biases. The NYTimes risks having their coefficient lowered by demanding too little verification.
Thank you,
Chris Black
How did your Confidential News Sources Policy allow anonymity for the the Israeli official who opined that Khader Adan is a terrorist given anonymity in the Feb 21, 2012 article “Palestinian on Hunger Strike to Be Freed Without Court Ruling?”
The February 5, 2012 article “U.S. Said to Target Rescuers at Drone Strike Sites” by Scott Shane quotes an alleged Senior American Counterterrorism official speaking on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Shane writes that the official questioned the reports findings, saying “targeting discussions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions – there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.” I realize that many government employees are not authorized to speak to reporters. If that was the case why wasn’t it stated as such. As it is written this official seems like a way to fill the article with the opinion that reports about drone attacks killing innocent civilians is nothing other than misinformation. Why was this official given anonymity?
ATTENTION:
ARTHUR BRISBANE: Public Editor , NEW YORK TIMES.
Dear Sir:
I encourage you to write about the recent violations of the New York Times’ own policy of granting anonymity .
The Times’ granting anonymity to government sources to smear critics is journalistically indefensible!
Mary Rando-Eberhardt M.D.
my address
Dear Mr. Brisane,
I am concerned by these reported recent violations of the Times’ own policies on granting anonymity:
https://fair.org/index.php?page=4492
Granting anonymity to government sources to smear critics is journalistically indefensible. Please write about lapses and take steps to insure they do not happen again.
Sincerely,
Larry Turk
Such an excellent write-up! No idea how you were able to write this article..it’d take me long hours. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling ads on your website?
write about these recent violations of the Times’ own policies on granting anonymity. Granting anonymity to government sources to smear critics is journalistically indefensible.
NYT Lets Unnamed Officials Smear Critics as ‘Terrorists ‘
Anonymous attacks violate paper’s policy
2/24/12
In two stories this month, New York Times journalists allowed anonymous government officials to smear critics as terrorists and terrorist sympathizers–a shocking violation of the paper’s explicit rules against allowing anonymity to be a cover for attacks.
In a February 22 story about Khader Adnan–the Palestinian hunger striker challenging the Israeli practice of holding prisoners without trial–reporter Isabel Kershner wrote:
An Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, called the deal over Mr. Adnan “a workable arrangement” since ultimately he will be almost completing his four-month term of detention.
“We faced a dilemma,” the official said. “On the one hand we did not want any harm to come to him, or the wider danger in that. On the other hand it is not healthy to set a precedent that every time a Palestinian terrorist goes on hunger strike, he gets a get-out-of-jail-free pass.”
The “deal” is a reference to Israel’s offer to free Adnan by mid-April.
The anonymous Israeli official is declaring Adnan a terrorist. If Israeli officials know this to be the case, they need not detain him without charge; they could bring a case against him under anti-terror laws. So the Times is granting anonymity to a government official to declare Adnan a criminal, despite the lack of any publicly available evidence that this is the case.
Earlier this month, in a story (2/6/12) about a new Bureau of Investigative Journalism report about CIA drone strikes targeting rescuers and funerals, the Times granted anonymity to a U.S. official who equated the nonprofit news outlet’s researchers with Al-Qaeda sympathizers:
A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions–there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al-Qaeda succeed.”
Both examples clearly violate the paper’s stated standards on the granting of anonymity. That privilege is to be used rarely, should be “the subject of energetic negotiation” and should “tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source.” The policy also bars granting the cover of anonymity “to people who are engaged in speculation,” and states directly: “We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack.”
In these cases, government officials are being granted anonymity to attack individuals critical of those governments’ policies. The privilege the Times extends to these powerful figures means they are shielded from any accountability for their words.
The Times’ anonymity policy has been discussed frequently over the years (Unclaimed Territory, 11/24/05), among critics of the paper (FAIR Action Alert, 2/16/07) and even within the Times itself (3/22/09). These most recent violations suggest that the Times needs to figure out, once and for all, whether it will follow its own rules.
What a wonderful post! No idea how you came up with this post..it’d take me days. Well worth it though, I’d suspect. Have you considered selling banners on your blog?
Oh, superb analysis! I have no clue how you wrote this article..it’d take me weeks. Well worth it though, I’d suspect. Have you considered selling banners on your blog?
Oh, an excellent write-up! No idea how you were able to write this article..it’d take me long hours. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling advertising space on your blog?
Oh, a great piece of text! No idea how you were able to say this article..it’d take me long hours. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling ads on your blog?
What a wonderful description! I have no clue how you wrote this article..it’d take me days. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling advertising space on your website?
What a great text! I have no clue how you were able to say this text..it’d take me days. Well worth it though, I’d suspect. Have you considered selling banners on your website?
What a wonderful piece of text! I have no clue how you managed to write this article..it’d take me weeks. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling ads on your website?
What superb post! I have no clue how you came up with this text..it’d take me days. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling ads on your blog?
What an excellent written report! No idea how you managed to write this report..it’d take me days. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling advertising space on your website?
Such a great analysis! No idea how you were able to say this article..it’d take me weeks. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling banners on your website?
What a wonderful text! I have no clue how you managed to write this text..it’d take me long hours. Well worth it though, I’d suspect. Have you considered selling advertising space on your website?
Oh, an excellent text! No idea how you wrote this post..it’d take me days. Well worth it though, I’d assume. Have you considered selling banners on your blog?
I like this site layout ! How was it made? It is rather nice!
You’ve gotten terrific thing on this site.